• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Well if he has no weakness and doesn't need any states then who would you recommend? I disagree with you, I think that he needs to work on two regions (Sun Belt and Rust belt) and I also believe that he has to have a good way to counter McCain's military/FP credentials. I think he needs a VP who can help in those areas and Clark and Richardson are the first that come to mind. I used AR as an example of one of the states that could move in to in play status but, I think it is far more important to focus on regions rather than states.
Its not what you or I believe.. He will not pick a VP base on foreign policy and state strategy. And I agree, Obama is playing a whole new ball game here.. you are stuck on how democrats did it in the past.. and It didn't help democrats the last two elections.

Clark doesn't want to be VP and suggested to Obama 'pick Sebelius . Richardson also said he's not interested. Lets try to keep your picks on people who actually want the job.. or at least haven't come out saying 'no thanks.
 
Deus Ex Machina said:
Its not what you or I believe.. He will not pick a VP base on foreign policy and state strategy. And I agree, Obama is playing a whole new ball game here.. you are stuck on how democrats did it in the past.. and It didn't help democrats the last two elections.


I think you are mis-interpreting what I am saying. I am saying that he needs to build stronger organization in REGIONS not states. I think he has a pretty good handle on the mid-west and I think he has strong surrogates in the South and the PACNWest. If I'm reading what you are saying neither States nor Foreign policy matter to Obama and if that is the case then what does matter to him?

The purpose of this thread is to speculate about what McCain or Obama might do so I'm having a difficult time understanding your position.


Deus Ex Machina said:
Clark doesn't want to be VP and suggested to Obama to pick Sebelius . Richardson also said he's not interested. Lets try to keep your picks on people who actually want the job.. or at least haven't come out saying 'no thanks.


Well then why don't you give me a list of who is eligible for the job and I'll pick from your list.

Thank you.
 
Tommie Hu$tle said:
Well then why don't you give me a list of who is eligible for the job and I'll pick from your list.

Thank you.
You already know the list.. there's really no more than 4 people on it.

You picked two people who have come out and said they don't want it.

I didn't know we were just having fun with names. I thought this was a serious list thats all... sorry
 

grandjedi6

Master of the Google Search
Deus Ex Machina said:
Its not what you or I believe.. He will not pick a VP base on foreign policy and state strategy. And I agree, Obama is playing a whole new ball game here.. you are stuck on how democrats did it in the past.. and It didn't help democrats the last two elections.

Clark doesn't want to be VP and suggested to Obama 'pick Sebelius . Richardson also said he's not interested. Lets try to keep your picks on people who actually want the job.. or at least haven't come out saying 'no thanks.

Richardson was lying. Check the date of that article
 
Veep Watch: Sebelius Raises Her Profile

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/original_message_from_xxxxxx_t.php
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius will likely end up on Barack Obama's vice presidential short list, and until Obama makes his pick, her every appearance outside Kansas will generate an unusual amount of interest.

On June 25, Sebelius and fellow potential vice presidential nominee Tom Daschle will host a breakfast for major Democratic Governors Association donors in Washington, D.C.

Over breakfast at the headquarters of the Alston Bird law, Sebelius and Daschle will brief the governors on the DGA's prospects for 2008 and their efforts to control the redistricting process in 2010.

Sebelius was a private fan of Obama's well before she endorsed him in January. The two are said to get along marvelously. In picking her, Obama would not necessarily intend to put Kansas in play or even to reap a political benefit. In his mind, folks who know these things say, she is competent, qualified, young, and he can envision working with her for eight years.

Sebelius has governed from the center, but she is not a conservative Democrat: she opposes the death penalty, opposed a same-sex marriage-banning constitutional amendment, opposes concealed carry laws, and is pro-choice.

That latter position is causing her some trouble. The archbishop of Kansas City forbid priests from offering her communion. She's emeshed herself in questions about her political relationship with an unabashed provider of late-term abortions. Choosing Sebelius would drive the pro-life community nuts.

Sebelius is a youngish 60. Her father was governor of Ohio and her family has deep midwestern roots.
 
Hillary Clinton's worst fear

Two words: Kathleen Sebelius.

http://www.chron.com/commons/person...b8dff&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending
She could take the nomination away from Clinton in 2012. Handily.

Hillary would be forced to run on having had the nomination “stolen” you see. Sebelius as a red state governor would take away her “working man” angle out of the gate, and by virtue of being one of the very best governors in the country (in real ways) brings executive experience Hillary just doesn’t have. A fresh face that got there under her own steam, etc.

Do the mental math on it and Hillary would have to run as the woman scorned in 2008 you see. Or on national experience, which her Iraq vote and America’s preference for Washington outsiders will squelch.

No, I think anyone looking at a Sebelius – Clinton primary match up in 2012 would say Clinton would very likely be defeated handily. I think if she were on the ticket this time around then it would be a landslide. But could still take her regardless.

And if I see it, I think Hillary Clinton sees it.

So I think this is about building her brand, getting as many people to carry her torch in case Obama loses this time around to face the Sebelius challenge.

But it is Sebelius and others like her that Hillary fears. She sees the writing on the wall, and is not satisfied at having taken a large chunk out of the glass ceiling single handedly.

And so she sees this in permanent terms. Senate majority leader and NY governor are three steps back in her mind from the prize, and she sees her chances not of just this shot but all in the future dimming. And the triangulation is falling apart as the darkness closes in on all sides.

I feel sorry for her; she has put up the good fight. She has done a lot for women.

But she has done herself no favors the last month in my view, for the long term. In fact she has done all the right things to open the door for Obama to offer Sebelius the spot on the ticket rather than her.

The writing is on the wall.
Sebelius would be a great choice for VP. She seems so level-headed, oozes common sense and her seniority and experience as a governor would be the perfect complement Barack's leadership.
 

Farmboy

Member
grandjedi6 said:
Richardson was lying. Check the date of that article

Doesn't matter anyway, he wouldn't say no. Neither would any of the other candidates rumoured to 'not want it' (Edwards, Schweitzer, Warner). You simply don't refuse an offer like this.

I'm edging towards Kaine instead of Webb, btw. Mostly because Kaine's apparently that much more popular in VA, is a governor and a Catholic. But I do feel Webb is the front runner still.

EDIT: Here's what I think of the Murdoch thing that was brought up a few pages back. I think Murdoch believes that A) the Democrats have a near-automatic win this year and B) McCain is a much weaker candidate than most media would have you believe and in the YouTube era, his flip-flopping nature will come out sooner or later.

He's hinted at both these ideas extensively in recent interviews. He supported Clinton first because, like everyone else, he thought she'd be the Democratic nominee and thereby the de factor winner of the GE. But he realised Obama was the real "rock star" of this election sooner than most. He had no problems admitting he personally played in role in the NY Post endorsement. The pragmatist that is Murdoch knows a winner when he sees one.

Roger Ailes has far stronger ties to the GOP and a true loyalty to that party, come hell or high water. So there's no question that Fox News will continue on a blatantly pro-McCain, anti-Obama course, unless Murdoch really puts his foot down. And that's a power-struggle Murdoch might shy away from, especially since most of the presenters on Fox are as entrenched as Ailes is.
 

thekad

Banned
Sebelius, like Deus has preached non-stop, is the frontrunner. Obama doesn't feel disadvantaged in the area of foreign policy.
 

syllogism

Member
mccain.jpg
 
icarus-daedelus said:
Is it really that implausible to think Speaker of the House > Senate Majority Leader? I personally try to forget that seniority (and Robert Byrd) even exist, so the problem may lie in personal demons of my own with the office of President Pro Tempore of the Senate. >_>

EDIT: Also, not memorizing the line of succession. I know it goes through cabinet members next, but does the Secretary of Transportation come before Secretary of HUD?? A mystery, my friend, a mystery.

EDIT 2: Holy crap, HUD comes before Transportation. I never would have known!

When the line of succession was first extended beyon the VP, the President Pro Tempore actually did come before the Speaker of the House, and then both were removed from the line. It's only beeen about 60 years that we've had the current order.

And the line is set in order of the creation of each department with the exception of the Department of Defense, which was technically created in the 1940's, but The Secretary of Defense was given the spot previously held by the old Secretary of War position.

There have been some attempts to change the list in recent years, particularly to move the Secretary of Homeland Security higher up in the list (right now it's at the bottom since it's the newest department) because theoretically if there is a crisis you'd expect the head of Homeland Security might be better prepared to take over than the Secretary of Education (though at least with the current administration it's probably a gamble either way).
 
Anyone notice McCain is running push poll advertisements even here on GAF?

"Do you think it's okay to meet uncoditionally with people who hate america (Big picture of Amidinejad) yes or no"

"Paid for Jon McCain 2008"

Stay classy McCain!
 

sangreal

Member
electricpirate said:
Anyone notice McCain is running push poll advertisements even here on GAF?

"Do you think it's okay to meet uncoditionally with people who hate america (Big picture of Amidinejad) yes or no"

"Paid for Jon McCain 2008"

Stay classy McCain!

and my understanding is regardless of your answer it takes you to a donate page

btw, Obama has never said he would meet with Ahmadinejad (not that there is anything wrong with that)
 

Haunted

Member
BenjaminBirdie said:
Devastating. McCain really shows him up in this area.

Oh, wait, "shows him up" means "has just as many of his own off-putting, unpredictable, and troubling characteristics when it comes to public speaking" right?
"just as many?" That's generous to McCain.
 
sangreal said:
btw, Obama has never said he would meet with Ahmadinejad (not that there is anything wrong with that)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU
Q: "Would you meet separately, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and South Korea..."
Obama: "I would."

Unless, of course, you don't consider Ahmadinejad a 'leader' of Iran.

Wait, are you the guy who called Obama a Marxist and then ran away when rebuffed?


I don't remember saying that, but he is. Ho many times do I need to hear him talk about raising taxes on the rich, etc. in the guise of "fairness" Why is everybody so quick to want to be a plebeian under this guy?
 

thekad

Banned
Oh, so the latter then. And I guess I should clarify that:

1) a =/= the

&

2) If taxing the rich = Marxist, then every President = Marxist.
 
All this Sebelius VP talk... I think she's probably qualified and from what I know of her seems like a good politician.

BUT if we're looking at this from a political standpoint she doesn't work for two reasons. One, she has no foreign policy experience, and that's the "edge" McCain has for him right now (in the minds of the people).

Two, how would it look to the (shudder) 18 million Clinton supporters if Obama picked a woman for VP that WASN'T Clinton? Like a slap in the face, that's what (also to Clinton herself). Granted, if these people were truly feminists they wouldn't care, but then again if they were truly feminists they wouldn't be considering voting for McCain right now. As unfortunate as it may be though, Sebelius would be looked at as a female VP pick in the sense of Ferraro, even if she wasn't.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
King_Slender said:
I don't remember saying that, but he is. Ho many times do I need to hear him talk about raising taxes on the rich, etc. in the guise of "fairness" Why is everybody so quick to want to be a plebeian under this guy?

Because most people make less than 200k a year and don't much enjoy watching the federal debt double every few years?

Because the US has some of the least progressive taxation in the developed world to no particular improvement in quality of living?

worldrunover said:
BUT if we're looking at this from a political standpoint she doesn't work for two reasons. One, she has no foreign policy experience, and that's the "edge" McCain has for him right now (in the minds of the people).

I do think you're right that McCain will play that angle, but I'm not sure it'll work.

Americans favor by 2-1 pulling out of Iraq.
Americans favor by 2-1 meeting with foreign leaders.

What are the other foreign policy issues on the table right now?
 
thekad said:
Oh, so the latter then. And I guess I should clarify that:

1) a =/= the

&

2) If taxing the rich = Marxist, then every President = Marxist.

No, no, no. I'm talking about the pandering to the "poor" - who pay little to NO taxes, by talking about how much money the "rich" get a break on. Anyone that buys into that line of reasoning is just a mindless wealth redistribution drone. If I'm paying $2000 a year in taxes and I get a 20% cut to bring it down to $1600, why would I give a shit if someone paying $100k a year gets their taxes cut to $80k a year - unless I wanted that $20k to be given to me in some form?
 

sangreal

Member
worldrunover said:
BUT if we're looking at this from a political standpoint she doesn't work for two reasons. One, she has no foreign policy experience, and that's the "edge" McCain has for him right now (in the minds of the people).

I'd like to be the first to dispute that John McCain is credible on Foreign Policy. I'm not doubting that most of the electorate believes he is, but I don't understand why (well I do understand -- military policy = foreign policy in many minds). I just have a hard time picturing:

John McCain working with the quickly developing nation of Vietnam when he insists on referring to them as gooks.

John McCain working with arab nations when he says trading with them is tantamount to trading with al-Qaida and: "I don’t want to trade with al-Qaida, all they want to trade is burqas,"

How about Europe? Let's see how much they like him there:
FRANCE
Obama 65%
McCain 8%

GERMANY
Obama 67%
McCain 6%

ITALY
Obama 70%
McCain 15%

RUSSIA
Obama 31%
McCain 24%

GREAT BRITAIN
Obama 49%
McCain 14%
 
King_Slender said:
No, no, no. I'm talking about the pandering to the "poor" - who pay little to NO taxes, by talking about how much money the "rich" get a break on. Anyone that buys into that line of reasoning is just a mindless wealth redistribution drone. If I'm paying $2000 a year in taxes and I get a 20% cut to bring it down to $1600, why would I give a shit if someone paying $100k a year gets their taxes cut to $80k a year - unless I wanted that $20k to be given to me in some form?

Wouldn't you? For better schools? Better infrastructure? Better anything?

Unless someone could look outside the window and think America is in tip-top shape with no need of improving anything, I don't see how one could answer that last question without anything other than a "Yes, please."
 

thekad

Banned
BenjaminBirdie said:
Wouldn't you? For better schools? Better infrastructure? Better anything?

Unless someone could look outside the window and think America is in tip-top shape with no need of improving anything, I don't see how one could answer that last question without anything other than a "Yes, please."

Shut up, lucky duck!

Also, sangreal, those poll numbers would probably be a detriment to Obama here in America, especially the France one.
 

sangreal

Member
btw, Obama is only talking about ending Bush's tax cuts for people making over $250k

Cheebs said:
Give up on Selebius. It would offend clinton folk too much. It's not going to happen. I say it will be one of these:

Gov. Strickland
Gov. Kaine
Gov. Schweitzer
Former Sen. Nunn
Sen. Webb

I am 99.9% positive his pick will be a male.

Join me on the Obama/Gore ticket
 

sangreal

Member
thekad said:
Shut up, lucky duck!

Also, sangreal, those poll numbers would probably be a detriment to Obama here in America, especially the France one.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Much like "Castro endorses Obama!" "Hamas endorses Obama!" etc
Cheebs said:
Sounds as realistic as a Obama/Batman ticket. ;)
I could get behind that
 

sangreal

Member
Looks like the Obama campaign is going to make a push for evangelicals unhappy with McCain:
The Brody File has learned that in the next two weeks Barack Obama's campaign will unveil a major new program to attract younger Evangelicals and Catholics to their campaign.

It's called the "Joshua Generation Project." The name is based on the biblical story of how Joshua's generation led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

A source close to the Obama campaign tells The Brody File the following:

"The Joshua Generation project will be the Obama campaign's outreach to young people of faith. There's unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward."

The official rollout won't be for another two weeks or so, but The Brody File has been told the activities will include house parties, blogging, concerts and more.

You can see the logo on this page above.

Obama spoke about the "Joshua Generation" in a speech he gave in Selma, Alabama in March of 2007. Read part of that speech below. It will give you an good idea of where the Obama campaign is heading with this effort:

Obama: "I'm here because somebody marched. I'm here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I thank the Moses generation; but we've got to remember, now, that Joshua still had a job to do. As great as Moses was, despite all that he did, leading a people out of bondage, he didn't cross over the river to see the Promised Land. God told him your job is done. You'll see it. You'll be at the mountain top and you can see what I've promised. What I've promised to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. You will see that I've fulfilled that promise but you won't go there. We're going to leave it to the Joshua generation to make sure it happens. There are still battles that need to be fought; some rivers that need to be crossed. Like Moses, the task was passed on to those who might not have been as deserving, might not have been as courageous, find themselves in front of the risks that their parents and grandparents and great grandparents had taken. That doesn't mean that they don't still have a burden to shoulder, that they don't have some responsibilities. The previous generation, the Moses generation, pointed the way. They took us 90% of the way there. We still got that 10% in order to cross over to the other side. So the question, I guess, that I have today is what's called of us in this Joshua generation? What do we do in order to fulfill that legacy; to fulfill the obligations and the debt that we owe to those who allowed us to be here today?"​

The Brody File said awhile back that the Obama campaign would be making a concerted effort to attrack Evangelicals and Catholics to their campaign.

Yes, the Obama campaign understands that the issue of abortion is a problem for some voters of faith. They respect that and understand if some just simply can't come on board because of that. However, they look at this project as a way of broadening the values discussion. Poverty, Darfur, Climate Change and yes, even the war are issues younger Evangelicals may be able to see eye to eye on with the Obama campaign.

Whatever you think of the "Joshua Generation Project," you have to give the campaign their due because they are making concerted efforts to NOT ignore faith voters. In my reporting, I can tell you this is not a contrived effort.

The folks behind this believe in not only the mission of winning over faith voters to Obama but the larger mission of not ignoring faith voters when it comes to politics.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/388366.aspx
 

sangreal

Member
Cheebs said:
I still am wary on the idea that evangelicals would be willing to vote for a pro-choice black man with rumors of him being muslim in more numbers than a boring white catholic (kerry).
Me too, but so long as they don't vote for McCain thats fine. Novak wrote a harsh column on that front today: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_evangelical_problem.html

Seems McCain is doing everything he can to alienate Evangelicals

NYTimes had a piece too: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Cheebs said:
I still am wary on the idea that evangelicals would be willing to vote for a pro-choice black man with rumors of him being muslim in more numbers than a boring white catholic (kerry).

What you also have to take into account that evangelicals are LESS willing to vote for a not-really-religious hated-the-religious-right guy than they were for a president running on a platform of faith based initiatives against the backdrop of half the states in the country having gay marriage bans on the ballot.

Therein lies the key; one of the reasons why Bush got so many raw votes in 2004 is between the ballot measures and Bush's general platforms, the evangelical movement as a bloc were more galvanized than ever. Now, they're less galvanized than ever; split on climate change and Iraq, not happy with either candidate, with nothing going on downticket to make them show up. The downticket is awful. No "jail for judges" or "double secret gay marriage ban" or anything like that. Dem pickups likely in the Senate. Dem pickups likely in the house.
 

jarrod

Banned
beermonkey@tehbias said:
Fact is that of all the primaries in the States where both names were on the ballot more people voted for Obama. Throw in the caucuses and more people came out for Obama even if you give up Michigan.

Hillary's camp has no business bragging on their fuzzy math 'popular vote' victory unless they want to hurt the party.
Adding Michigan, Clinton won in both primaries and even caucuses. Delete it, and Obama won both. Attribute 75% of "uncommitted" to Obama (which is the figure the DNC arrived at when calculating Michigan's won delegates) and Clinton wins primaries, Obama wins caucuses by less than 2k votes (closest margin of all metrics).


Edit: I've also noticed the Clinton camp's shied away from saying "popular vote" generally in favor of quoting the 18 million figure... which is fair I'd say. It's disingenious to say she won the popular vote, but her claiming the highest number of votes historically in a democratic primary is entirely valid and likely what she want's her run's "legacy" built on.
 
Monica Novotny looking summery. But then had a mic problem and cut to a commercial. There's a few people on here who will remember her all the way back to the Channel One days.
 

~Devil Trigger~

In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Cheebs said:
Sounds as realistic as a Obama/Batman ticket. ;)

oh I'd vote twice for this ticket

on the real side, Jim Webb seems like a great pick IMO

he's like McCain but younger and smarter :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom